Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks for your comments Tony and ‘ Philou’, constructive criticism is always welcome.

 

I had to wait to reply until I returned home as, despite having lots of photos of the layout they all had trains in the way obscuring the point I want to make. You are certainly right that I squeezed in sidings where I could, and it’s likely that in some cases, I’ve made situations that are improbably with regard to the prototype. However, I don’t think it’s as bad as you suggest. This is a view looking the other way from the position where the previous photographs were taken.

 

 

I hope this shows that the fans of five sidings leads into a headshunt. The running lines drop from 4 to 2 at about this point and that headshunt provides protection for the up fast as the down slow/ station access diverges from it as well as access to the fans of five sidings. I can not see that there’s anything wrong with this arrangement, but I stand to be corrected if I’ve missed anything. 

 

On the down side, the sidings are accessed directly off the down slow just before it joins the down fast. There is a headshunt for the sidings as seen terminating to the left of the tunnel mouth. Again this is the same headshunt which provides protection for the down fast as the down slow joins it.

 

Following this discussion, I suspect I should have put the crossover from down slow to down fast (seen centre right in the photo) further back (behind the camera). Then what is currently the down slow could have been a dedicated siding access line at this point. However, it’s too late for that, so I think I will have to add a couple of trap points and accept that it’s a ‘less common’ operational feature.

 

I attach a plan of the layout below to allow readers to make a bit more sense of the photos.

 

 

On the subject of large layouts, I hope that Gresley Jn. qualifies (it's c.32ftx10ft). I’m lucky enough to have a large converted loft in which to base it. Indeed, that loft rather sold the house to me!

 

Andy

 

Thanks for that Andy,

 

The situation is very much clearer, and I apologise for misinterpreting your track arrangement. Indeed, there is no need for a trap point protecting the running roads from the small goods yard. The headshunt provides it. In fact, with one exception, it would seem that all your sidings are protected. 

 

I'm not sure about the siting of the signals, though.

 

If your plan is correct (which I assume it is), those five dead-inner sidings (bottom right) would be difficult to fully-work because the headshunt is shorter than most of them.

 

With so much available space, I'm surprised you didn't model an actual prototype.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dave John]

Well, a point off a running line leading directly into a fan of dead-end sidings rather than having a headshunt would be I think be unusual Tony. So, er , just for the "operational headaches to clear the new year fug " section here is one. 

 

First a picture , Kelvinbridge station on the Glasgow Central line, taken about 1955. Note the foreground trailing point off the running line towards Stobcross, and the point for the goods shed, hand worked but with a double trap and signal controlled from the signal box left upper. 

 

 

Wheres the headshunt ? Ok, a map. The photographer is standing on Eldon Street bridge. 10 Yards behind him the running lines enter a tunnel, which was only two tracks wide. 

 

 

The only way to shunt wagons into that yard is for a train to pass the trailing point, enter the tunnel for the entire length of the train and then reverse back into the sidings. If the train was more than half a dozen or so wagons long then the operation would have to be repeated with the brake van left in one of the sidings.

 

Prototype for everything? If you had a layout with trains reversing out of a tunnel into a fan of sidings no-one would believe it ..... 

 

 

Anyway, its back on trains and trap points. 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

24 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

'A RTR loco that has only had its number changed, and you pick up it has couplings.'

 

Constructive criticism, Clive. I'd expect it in response to anything I post. Or what anyone else posts. 

 

When the B1s became Departmental stock their coupling shackles were removed, but the hooks in the 'beams remained (last-but-one photograph in the appropriate Yeadon). That was how the your example was able to rescue a DMU. Nothing miraculous at all! 

 

'as there was no compromise on siding lengths or the size of the building.'

 

Please forgive my ignorance; I didn't realise it was an actual prototype.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

The layout was a composite of several depots but as stated the siding lengths and buildings were to scale, you cannot shorten a siding that would hold four type 4 locos unless you make the locos shorter.

[Tony Wright]

7 minutes ago, Dave John said:

Well, a point off a running line leading directly into a fan of dead-end sidings rather than having a headshunt would be I think be unusual Tony. So, er , just for the "operational headaches to clear the new year fug " section here is one. 

 

First a picture , Kelvinbridge station on the Glasgow Central line, taken about 1955. Note the foreground trailing point off the running line towards Stobcross, and the point for the goods shed, hand worked but with a double trap and signal controlled from the signal box left upper. 

 

 

Wheres the headshunt ? Ok, a map. The photographer is standing on Eldon Street bridge. 10 Yards behind him the running lines enter a tunnel, which was only two tracks wide. 

 

 

The only way to shunt wagons into that yard is for a train to pass the trailing point, enter the tunnel for the entire length of the train and then reverse back into the sidings. If the train was more than half a dozen or so wagons long then the operation would have to be repeated with the brake van left in one of the sidings.

 

Prototype for everything? If you had a layout with trains reversing out of a tunnel into a fan of sidings no-one would believe it ..... 

 

 

Anyway, its back on trains and trap points. 

 

Most-interesting, Dave,

 

Thanks for posting. At least it shows the running lines protected by trap point(s) from the yard.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[t-b-g]

25 minutes ago, D-A-T said:

Back in 2006, when married, we bought a new 4 bed detached house on the former Markham Main pit top (Armthorpe, Doncaster). In 2007(?) we were on the fringe of an earthquake. The rumble and noise woke us up. My first thought was the shaft had collapsed! I decided it was a warning and sold the house soon after!

 

I remember that earthquake!

 

No matter how much reassurance is given, I am not sure I would be happy living on top of a capped shaft, or many other former industrial sites. The building of houses on the contaminated land on the Doncaster Plant site sounds to me like a problem waiting to happen in the future.

 

Just near me we had a problem with a nasty tank of dodgy chemicals from a former gas works found just underground when somebody dug a hole in their garden a few years ago. Two whole streets ended up having their gardens dug out and replaced.

 

 

[Northmoor]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I remember that earthquake!

 

No matter how much reassurance is given, I am not sure I would be happy living on top of a capped shaft, or many other former industrial sites. The building of houses on the contaminated land on the Doncaster Plant site sounds to me like a problem waiting to happen in the future.

 

Just near me we had a problem with a nasty tank of dodgy chemicals from a former gas works found just underground when somebody dug a hole in their garden a few years ago. Two whole streets ended up having their gardens dug out and replaced.

 

There are a lot of regulations to be adhered to when building non-residential buildings on former industrial land, which get stricter if the new buildings are residential.

 

One of my regular offices in London is built on part of the site of a gas works and power station on the Greenwich peninsula.  When holes were being bored for foundations prior to constructing the new apartment blocks alongside our office, there was often a strong creosote-like smell and visibly very black earth being removed.  I guess this is residual coal tar?  Where the concrete base was being laid for each tower, the earth was removed to what must have been almost extreme high water level, such is the requirement to remove contaminated soil.

[APOLLO]

Not just houses disappear down mine shafts - be careful where you lay your railway lines !!

 

http://www.wiganworld.co.uk/stuff/past1.php?opt=past

 

And be careful when buying property around Wigan (I've been lucky up to now).

 

 

Brit15

 

[D-A-T]

23 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I remember that earthquake!

 

No matter how much reassurance is given, I am not sure I would be happy living on top of a capped shaft, or many other former industrial sites. The building of houses on the contaminated land on the Doncaster Plant site sounds to me like a problem waiting to happen in the future.

 

Just near me we had a problem with a nasty tank of dodgy chemicals from a former gas works found just underground when somebody dug a hole in their garden a few years ago. Two whole streets ended up having their gardens dug out and replaced.

 

 

As does the building on the former Case International Harvesters site on Wheatley Hall Road. My first serious girlfriend’s father worked there in the foundry. Horrible dirty place. Guess they’ve had to decontaminate the land before starting building.

Edited January 1, 2020 by D-A-T
Grammar

[Clive Mortimore]

12 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I remember that earthquake!

 

No matter how much reassurance is given, I am not sure I would be happy living on top of a capped shaft, or many other former industrial sites. The building of houses on the contaminated land on the Doncaster Plant site sounds to me like a problem waiting to happen in the future.

 

Just near me we had a problem with a nasty tank of dodgy chemicals from a former gas works found just underground when somebody dug a hole in their garden a few years ago. Two whole streets ended up having their gardens dug out and replaced.

 

 

Hi Tony

 

Last week my brother told me his house was on an old army range, and in his deeds it is stated that should anyone while digging their garden hit anything metal they are not carry on digging but call the bomb disposal unit.

 

I use to walk customers dogs on what was called a playing field in Chelmsford. It had been a gravel pit, then a land fill and finally a playing field. They stopped playing football on it because at half time when the players lit up their fags the level of methane coming out the ground was quite high. I can recall the council checking the methane levels when I was walking dogs there. Oddly the same city council then decided to build houses on it. Thankfully a well directed campaign has reversed that decision. Unfortunately the old gravel pits, land fill, come golf course in the village I lived in Essex is being built on.

 

I feel much safer living 2 miles form the sea on a old salt marsh at 2.5 meters above sea level.

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

There are a lot of regulations to be adhered to when building non-residential buildings on former industrial land, which get stricter if the new buildings are residential.

 

One of my regular offices in London is built on part of the site of a gas works and power station on the Greenwich peninsula.  When holes were being bored for foundations prior to constructing the new apartment blocks alongside our office, there was often a strong creosote-like smell and visibly very black earth being removed.  I guess this is residual coal tar?  Where the concrete base was being laid for each tower, the earth was removed to what must have been almost extreme high water level, such is the requirement to remove contaminated soil.

 

The problem was a metal tank, some way away from the main gas works, which had either been forgotten or missed when it was demolished. It was just below the surface and levels of contaminants in the soil were above acceptable levels. Whatever rules and regulations were in place didn't help.

 

I used to live in one of the houses involved and if I had put 20 years of work into building a garden railway, to have to rip it up, I would not have been happy!

[Clearwater]

Tony may remember the sad fate of Dudley Cricket Club from his Midlands days: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/nostalgia/spare-thought-cricket-club-went-13767093

 

Part of the pitch collapsed into uncharted limestone workings.  
 

David

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for that Andy,

 

The situation is very much clearer, and I apologise for misinterpreting your track arrangement. Indeed, there is no need for a trap point protecting the running roads from the small goods yard. The headshunt provides it. In fact, with one exception, it would seem that all your sidings are protected. 

 

I'm not sure about the siting of the signals, though.

 

If your plan is correct (which I assume it is), those five dead-inner sidings (bottom right) would be difficult to fully-work because the headshunt is shorter than most of them.

 

With so much available space, I'm surprised you didn't model an actual prototype.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony,

 

The signals are just plonked for now. I’m planning to build a MSE gantry to cross the four lines at about the point where the junction signal is now.

 

Two reasons for not building an actual prototype. Firstly, at the time I started Gresley Jn, it was designed to get the kids involved, so operational interest was paramount which is easier with a made up location. Sadly, that plan failed! Secondly, I’m not really a scenery builder, so I like to plonk RTP stuff. That’s easier when you’re not having to replicate something accurately.

 

Having said this, my next layout will be an actual prototype - hopefully King’s Cross station. I will keep the non railway buildings to a minimum and probably have to have help, simplify or commission some of the other structures if I’m going to get it done in my lifetime!

 

Andy

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

Maybe I'm unusual but Iike to see operations close up at the micro level.  Especially starting and stopping.

 

E.g. A locomotive creeping backing up to a long train waiting at a platfor , the inertia of the braked rolling stock causing the buffers to compress and bring the loco to a final halt. Then, after coupling, the whole train being slowly pulled away with all the wheels rolling smoothly from their dead stop to the steady but reduced slow speed needed to run by the platform, then across the various crossovers of the station throat on its way to the outbound main.

 

Andy

 

 

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Clearwater said:

Tony may remember the sad fate of Dudley Cricket Club from his Midlands days: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/nostalgia/spare-thought-cricket-club-went-13767093

 

Part of the pitch collapsed into uncharted limestone workings.  
 

David

Ah, memories of fossil-hunting at the Wren's Nest and a pint in The Caves pub.

[St Enodoc]

3 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

Maybe I'm unusual but Iike to see operations close up at the micro level.  Especially starting and stopping.

 

E.g. A locomotive creeping backing up to a long train waiting at a platfor , the inertia of the braked rolling stock causing the buffers to compress and bring the loco to a final halt. Then, after coupling, the whole train being slowly pulled away with all the wheels rolling smoothly from their dead stop to the steady but reduced slow speed needed to run by the platform, then across the various crossovers of the station throat on its way to the outbound main.

 

Andy

 

 

...with the loco stopping about six feet short then proceeding slowly up to the train. Compressing the buffers made it easier for the fireman to lift the screw coupling on to the hook.

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

However, though the vast majority can 'operate' a layout, a much smaller minority can actually build things for/on it. 

I'd say that "the vast majority can make the trains move on a layout" but a fraction of those can actually operate it.

[t-b-g]

12 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

I'd say that "the vast majority can make the trains move on a layout" but a fraction of those can actually operate it.

 

Well said. When I go to shows or visit layouts, I see many trains running but very little top quality operating.

 

i visited the big O gauge layout at Gainsborough last weekend. That requires quite a few operators to make it go. It was easy to pick out the people who run trains from the operators. You could see the same train running like a toy on some parts and like a real train on others depending on the skill of the operator of that section.

[Clive Mortimore]

29 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

...with the loco stopping about six feet short then proceeding slowly up to the train. Compressing the buffers made it easier for the fireman to lift the screw coupling on to the hook.

Hi John

 

A procedure I try to replicate in miniature. I stop the loco about an inch from the train (25 mm or about a scale 6 foot) then wait a while and slowly couple up. Once I think it is coupled I reverse the controller to check the coupling. The driver stops short to allow the person who is going to do the coupling up to be in a safe place where he can direct the driver. He is the person in charge during the coupling. He has a set procedure for connecting the brake system, and the train heating. As well as ensuring the coupling is secure the brake and heating need to be checked, all this takes time something many modellers do not add into their running of trains.  I learnt this from a NSE training video I stumbled on, on You Tube.

 

I should develop a procedure for the other end. I do stop about an inch and a half from the buffers not tight up against them. I should uncouple the loco and move it forward a tad. Would this take place after the other loco coupled up or before? As a trainspotter I never bothered to look what was going on at the other end once I had noted the number.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Clive Mortimore

[St Enodoc]

34 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi John

 

A procedure I try to replicate in miniature. I stop the loco about an inch from the train (25 mm or about a scale 6 foot) then wait a while and slowly couple up. Once I think it is coupled I reverse the controller to check the coupling. The driver stops short to allow the person who is going to do the coupling up to be in a safe place where he can direct the driver. He is the person in charge during the coupling. He has a set procedure for connecting the brake system, and the train heating. As well as ensuring the coupling is secure the brake and heating need to be checked, all this takes time something many modellers do not add into their running of trains.  I learnt this from a NSE training video I stumbled on, on You Tube.

 

I should develop a procedure for the other end. I do stop about an inch and a half from the buffers not tight up against them. I should uncouple the loco and move it forward a tad. Would this take place after the other loco coupled up or before? As a trainspotter I never bothered to look what was going on at the other end once I had noted the number.

As I recall, you would stop short of the buffers like you describe and the driver would apply the train brakes fully. The fireman would hop down and disconnect the brake pipe (and steam hose if in the heating season). He would then signal to the driver to ease up the couplings, after which he would go in again and lift the shackle off the hook. The driver would then move the loco forward leaving a clear space between it and the train. Finally, the fireman would move the loco lamps to their new positions ready for when the train departed - and don't forget that the rules required the loco to follow the departing train as far as the platform starting signal.

 

I think this would normally take place before another loco came on to the other end, as otherwise there would be a risk that the new loco would create a brake before the old loco had been uncoupled fully, thus placing the fireman at risk. That's not to say it never happened though.

[Coach bogie]

On 31/12/2019 at 15:19, Philou said:

@thegreenhowards Hello Tony,

 

Sorry for intruding into your thread a little late but I thought this arrangement of a double trap within a single point might avoid thegreenhowards having to lift any trackwork to cover the exit of his goods siding. The photo is a little grainy but shows the arrangement very clearly in the bottom right hand corner. The sidings no longer exist today

Cheers,

Philip

Just 'catching' up after the festivities. There is a double trap, still seeing occasional use in Manchester at Northenden Junction. I have included a snowy image as it is easier to see the rails. It is operated by a ground frame released from the CLC built box seen in the background. Note, it has no protecting signals.

Mike Wiltshire

bui

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

As I recall, you would stop short of the buffers like you describe and the driver would apply the train brakes fully. The fireman would hop down and disconnect the brake pipe (and steam hose if in the heating season). He would then signal to the driver to ease up the couplings, after which he would go in again and lift the shackle off the hook. The driver would then move the loco forward leaving a clear space between it and the train. Finally, the fireman would move the loco lamps to their new positions ready for when the train departed - and don't forget that the rules required the loco to follow the departing train as far as the platform starting signal.

 

I think this would normally take place before another loco came on to the other end, as otherwise there would be a risk that the new loco would create a brake before the old loco had been uncoupled fully, thus placing the fireman at risk. That's not to say it never happened though.

It would normally be done by the time the new loco came on to the other end, and in any case the train would have to be hit pretty hard to imperil the fireman uncoupling the old loco.  Don't forget his driver has applied the train brakes fully, and even if he hasn't, the uncoupling of the vacuum hoses between the loco and the train destroys the vacuum in the train, making it quite difficult to move.  

 

For 'proper' operating, don't forget that a brake continuity test must be performed every time the vacuum is destroyed by disconnecting the hoses, so before the train can proceed the brakes must be blown off, then destroyed by the guard using the setter in the van or taking the hose off the rear dummy coupling.  He must observe that the brake release pressure is at zero before the driver recreates the vacuum, about 2 minutes altogether.   But the model exhibition norm is to couple the loco and start off straight away without even allowing time for the brakes to be blown off, never mind a continuity test and killing the imaginary model fireman who is still in between tightening the screw coupling until 2 threads are showing, which means the buffer faces are 'kissing' (I know there's only one helical thread on a screw coupling but you know what I mean) and attending to the hoses.

 

I saw a very well regarded railway at a show in the last year, which features on this forum, where the loco ran around the stock, then recoupled in the platform shoving the coaches towards the buffer stop without stopping.  How is this done with the vacuum in the stock destroyed and insufficient time for anyone to isolate the brakes, which means pulling the isolation cord on each vehicle?

 

 

 

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

It would normally be done by the time the new loco came on to the other end, and in any case the train would have to be hit pretty hard to imperil the fireman uncoupling the old loco.  Don't forget his driver has applied the train brakes fully, and even if he hasn't, the uncoupling of the vacuum hoses between the loco and the train destroys the vacuum in the train, making it quite difficult to move.

Exactly. My point was that if the fresh loco came on the other end before all that, it could be trying to create a vacuum (let's stick to vacuum brakes) from the far end while the fireman at the near end was still working, especially if he had put the vacuum pipe back on its dummy.

 

Oh, and you were right first time. There are two threads on a screw coupling, one left-hand and one right-hand - otherwise it wouldn't work.

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I'd say that "the vast majority can make the trains move on a layout" but a fraction of those can actually operate it.

Hence my speech marks around 'operate', John. 

 

Poor operation/running/understanding/call it what you will is endemic at many shows. Not just poor (physical) running, but a lack of understanding of how real railways worked.

 

I'm not stating I fully-understand how real railways worked (a friend gave me an LNER Rule Book recently, and it's very complicated!), but I was most-intrigued by your excellent presentation at last year's Australian Convention about replicating and running (in part) an actual railway timetable in model form. I imagine the vast majority of modellers don't bother in the slightest with such fripperies in running there railway.

 

In my own case, though space/time/fiscal limitations prevent me from running the actual timetable on a summer's day in 1958 on LB, I've used both the passenger TT and the working TT (talk about complicated!) for the period to create as 'accurate' as possible sequence. Many (most?) trains have been left out out of necessity - for instance, where there are Up and Down separate trains (The Elizabethan, Flying Scotsman, Talisman(s), Queen of Scots, etc) I've only modelled one. 

 

I do have both Up and Down daily pick-ups. Talk about sedentary running! On one occasion, I put a clean Pacific on a pick-up, and was told that would never have happened. It did; not every day, but regularly, as the Plant used such a service to run-in an ex-works loco. 

 

There is so much to learn in railway modelling. As I learned yesterday, where I merely quoted Yeadon with regard to Departmental B1s and ther couplings. Thanks to John Isherwood for 'educating' me. 

 

It does raise an interesting question, though. How much we, as modellers, should believe the 'established and definitive works'?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[St Enodoc]

21 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Hence my speech marks around 'operate', John. 

 

Poor operation/running/understanding/call it what you will is endemic at many shows. Not just poor (physical) running, but a lack of understanding of how real railways worked.

 

I'm not stating I fully-understand how real railways worked (a friend gave me an LNER Rule Book recently, and it's very complicated!), but I was most-intrigued by your excellent presentation at last year's Australian Convention about replicating and running (in part) an actual railway timetable in model form. I imagine the vast majority of modellers don't bother in the slightest with such fripperies in running there railway.

 

In my own case, though space/time/fiscal limitations prevent me from running the actual timetable on a summer's day in 1958 on LB, I've used both the passenger TT and the working TT (talk about complicated!) for the period to create as 'accurate' as possible sequence. Many (most?) trains have been left out out of necessity - for instance, where there are Up and Down separate trains (The Elizabethan, Flying Scotsman, Talisman(s), Queen of Scots, etc) I've only modelled one. 

 

I do have both Up and Down daily pick-ups. Talk about sedentary running! On one occasion, I put a clean Pacific on a pick-up, and was told that would never have happened. It did; not every day, but regularly, as the Plant used such a service to run-in an ex-works loco. 

 

There is so much to learn in railway modelling. As I learned yesterday, where I merely quoted Yeadon with regard to Departmental B1s and ther couplings. Thanks to John Isherwood for 'educating' me. 

 

It does raise an interesting question, though. How much we, as modellers, should believe the 'established and definitive works'?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Thanks Tony. I don't understand in detail how railways worked either, not even the ones I worked on (which were definitely post-steam), but I learned a lot from observing and talking to operations department colleagues. I never took a Rules & Regs exam, though, as I didn't need to for any of my roles.

 

Like you, I've generated a composite sequence based on various source documents from different years and with a number of trains omitted for reasons of practicality. In two weeks' time we're going to have the first running session with all the main line services - 168 of them - in operation rather than the 48 we were limited to before I completed the storage loop tracks. I do have all three 'namers' running in both directions on both Friday and Saturday though!

 

Oh, and doesn't time fly - the BRMA Sydney Convention was the year before last now of course (2018)!

[Compound2632]

12 hours ago, Dave John said:

Well, a point off a running line leading directly into a fan of dead-end sidings rather than having a headshunt would be I think be unusual Tony. So, er , just for the "operational headaches to clear the new year fug " section here is one. 

 

First a picture , Kelvinbridge station on the Glasgow Central line, taken about 1955. Note the foreground trailing point off the running line towards Stobcross, and the point for the goods shed, hand worked but with a double trap and signal controlled from the signal box left upper. 

 

 

Wheres the headshunt ? Ok, a map. The photographer is standing on Eldon Street bridge. 10 Yards behind him the running lines enter a tunnel, which was only two tracks wide. 

 

 

The only way to shunt wagons into that yard is for a train to pass the trailing point, enter the tunnel for the entire length of the train and then reverse back into the sidings. If the train was more than half a dozen or so wagons long then the operation would have to be repeated with the brake van left in one of the sidings.

 

Prototype for everything? If you had a layout with trains reversing out of a tunnel into a fan of sidings no-one would believe it ..... 

 

 

Anyway, its back on trains and trap points. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Coach bogie said:

Just 'catching' up after the festivities. There is a double trap, still seeing occasional use in Manchester at Northenden Junction. I have included a snowy image as it is easier to see the rails. It is operated by a ground frame released from the CLC built box seen in the background. Note, it has no protecting signals.

Mike Wiltshire

bui

 

I believe that the way such sidings would be shunted would be for the train to come to a stand in rear of the trailing connection to the running line, the guard to put his brake on, and the engine to draw forwards with the incoming wagons, set back into the sidings and do any shunting needed before bringing out the outgoing wagons, setting back on the rest of the train, and preparing for the off. The guard's brake protects the manoeuvre from any following train that might be running through signals. The train remains in section throughout (hence lack of signalling in Mike's example); there would not be so much shunting that the line occupancy would become a problem. In Dave's case, only the portion of the train needing to set back into the yard goes into the tunnel; the rear portion and brake remains under the signalman's nose. Without track circuits, that's as safe as it gets - maybe the guard goes into the box to make doubly sure the signalman doesn't do anything foolish?

 

I'd welcome confirmation of this; it could well be that practice differed according to time and place. My source was someone familiar with BR(W) practice in the Reading area.

 

Birmingham Central Goods is an example of a goods station shunted from within a tunnel, though not on a main running line.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Compound2632